Slashdot Mirror
Apple Settles Creative Lawsuit for $100 Million
E IS mC(Square) writes "CNet News reports that `Apple Computer and Creative Technology have agreed to settle their legal dispute over music player patents for $100 million, the companies announced Wednesday.
The $100 million, to be paid by Apple, grants Apple a license to a Creative patent for the hierarchical user interface used in that company's Zen music players.
The patent covers an interface that lets users navigate through a tree of expanding options, such as selecting an artist, then a particular album by that artist, then a specific song from that album. Creative filed for the patent on Jan. 5, 2001.
Apple can get back some of the $100 million payment if Creative is able to secure licensing deals with other MP3 player manufacturers, said Steve Dowling, an Apple spokesman. "Creative is very fortunate to have been granted this early patent," Apple's CEO Steve Jobs said in a press release.`"
""Creative is very fortunate to have been granted this early patent," Apple's CEO Steve Jobs said in a press release.`"
You can almost hear him whispering "motherfuckers!" under his breath after saying this.
so does that mean Creative invented the treeview, or the database search?
cuz billions of programs out there may be affected by this.
Step 2. License offending patents to Creative for 150M.
Step 3. There is no step 3.
I suppose it's a new version of Rip. Burn. Mix.
... for an anatomical opening to expel the byproducts of digestion and sue everyone in sight with an a*****e.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
100 million is a pretty big payout for an obvious way to navigate through music that I myself invented when I was a kid. This method is: "The patent covers an interface that lets users navigate through a tree of expanding options, such as selecting an artist, then a particular album by that artist, then a specific song from that album."
I mean, isn't that how the stuff is organized in the record store too?
"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." 100 million dollars in patent taxes lame.
.. is that the idea was patentable. I mean come on... a simple heirarchical tree interface got patented? Who cares if it was for an mp3 player - does that make any difference? We've had tree interfaces for a while - its how many of us organize our music libraries (virtual and physical).
_Vishal www.squad9.com
This is a great example. The patent claims read just as described: how do you find a track to play using indexing.
Patents like this are not helping the public interest, but are simply ways for companies to lock out ideas without having to pay to develop them.
Time for the open source community to make "open patents" that are used to attack companies like creative that abuses them.
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
I have three fears with every line of code I write:
- It is buggy
- A better block of code already exists in SourceForge or somewhere else on the Internet
- It is stepping on one or more patents for completely obvious or barely novel ideas
I believe at this point paranoia is not only rational but optimistic and gin and tonic are my only defense since I can't afford lawyers, guns, and money.
Robert Oschler - RobotsRule.com
If I recall correctly from reading and a bit of training we were given at my company, this is supposed to be the guideline for validity of a patent application. I would think that if you asked just about any computer geek in 1995 to come up with a way to navigate a large music library, a hierarchy would have been the result. This is also how I used to arrange my mp3s before there were nice frontends, as a directory of Artists with subdirectories for Albums for each artist.
That's going to wipe out the profit margin on sales of 20-30 ipods!
"And it would be a bad thing if Apple started patenting user interfaces ... really."
Maybe that's a joke that went right over my head, but Apple is quite well known for patenting user interfaces. For instance, nobody else is allowed to depict a hard drive as an icon that looks like a photo or an illustration of a hard drive, because Apple has the patent on it.
Here are some examples:
This is a case of "live by the sword, die by the sword."
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Good point.. By licensing the patent, they are legitimizing it. The net effect is that it creates a big barrier to entry for new competitors. This is easy to do when you're the dominant player already seeing tons of revenue. Paying millions in licensing is a non-starter for the small innovators looking to enter that market.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=275275
I think the thing that people are forgetting here is that by settling Apple is pretty much making Creative defend this patent, essentially outsourcing the litigation - they pay nothing for that. If Creative does not defend the patent, or loses any case setting new precedent, Apple could conceivably sue to get the $100 million back.
Plus, they get back money, as stated above, for the 'Made for iPod' program that Creative is now a part of, and the iPod ecology is enhanced. They have taken on a partner here.
This is a win for Apple thinking long term. Good chess playing.
Even if everyone stops spending money on Creative products, and it won't matter. Sure, they'd have to trim down their product line to nothing, eventually, but a shell company and lawyers can subsist for a long time on nothing other than infringement lawsuits. Kind of like a cockroach living off the oil in your fingerprint, if you think about it.
I'm not sure what your experience is with legal costs - but I'll give you mine, as an inhouse technology expert at a tier-1 law firm: Ok Tedi Mining and BHP - pollution of a river, the suing of a multinational (one that just yesterday posted a US$10 BILLION profit) in multiple states of Australia, involving the government considering legislation to prevent the lawsuit, had legal costs at the time of settlement, for both parties, of under US$15M (the settlement was for $110M).
Factoring in other things I find it very, very unlikely that the cost of proving such a claim would even come remotely close to exceeding $100M. If you look at a legal team billing $5,000 an hour (which would be a reasonable figure including paralegals, clerks, ancillary support staff as well as lawyers), for, say 60% of the cost, 10% as being court fees, and the remaining 40% as "expert/proof costs" (ie the technical research and findings, as opposed to the legals), that's still in the order of 5 years FULLTIME work by that entire legal team to even use up that.
Not impossible, but exceptionally unlikely.
Heh. Most of the press copied this line from the Apple/Creative press release:
Apple will pay Creative $100 million for a paid-up license to use Creative's recently awarded patent in all Apple products.
They were in a hurry, though, and not many caught this:
Apple can recoup a portion of its payment if Creative is successful in licensing this patent to others.
So, Creative now has cash in the bank, 'validation' of its patent with a license from Apple, and an incentive to go forth and seek licenses from others...
Then there's this:
In addition, the companies announced that Creative has joined Apple's "Made for iPod" program and will be announcing their own iPod® accessory products later this year.
Apple puts money into Creative, Creative makes iPod accessories, and a cut of the accessory revenue goes back to Apple.
So... Apple gets rid of some lawsuits, sets things up to make trouble for some other music player makers, and gets another revenue stream. All in all, this doesn't look too bad as a business move for Apple.
Patent for hierarchical user interface? Anything from a file system to nested menus is a hierarchical user interface. Oh but this one is used in a music player. That's where the innovation comes in.
I'm not sure what you're talking about but it is not the claims from the patent. If you'd like to respond, I'm going to require that you read the claims of the patent because otherwise you are literally wasting my time. Here is the link. The Patent
The patent system is in need of a major reform. Currently when you are sued for patent infringement you have the burden to prove that either you don't infringe on the patent or that the patent is invalid. This obviously doesn't work.
First, you are apparently unaware of a JMOL for clearly unreasonable patent infringement suits. Secondly, it's called "a defense". Technically it's optional.
Instead, the patent holder should have the burden of proving that the invention is truly novel and non-obvious. The patent would simply serve as documentation proving when a particular thing was invented.
It's called "patent prosecution" and it's the only way to get a patent in the United States. Clever idea.
The patent office would not need to examine patents for validity (i.e. it could continue doing what it's doing) since that would be established at the trial. This would cut down on the amount of "one-click" patents, reduce or even eliminate the need for defensive patents, and make patent trolling much more difficult.
(I've already deleted 100 lines of flame but let me say) I don't believe for a second that you have the slightest idea what is or is not a valid patent. Secondly, I don't think you have put any thought whatsoever into how you would prove or disprove this at a trial from scratch. (I say my patent is valid. We're done. Oh no - suddenly someone has to prove it's INVALID - we're right back to the problem you claim to have solved.) I think that you are unaware that patent prosecution before the patent office takes anywhere from 2-6 years. You suggest we move that (or some variant) into the COURTROOM? Are you trolling? Thirdly, you have begun your paragraph with a groundless conclusion and end it the same way - how in God's name would this make trolling any more difficult? Under your system, I don't even need to WIN the infringement suit, I can simply tie up your exorbitantly expensive legal team for an additional 5 years. It's legal extortion at its best.
I know this post is not very nice but please bear in mind that what you've read is completely rewritten. I don't intend to flame, but I do think you're completely out of your element. The bottom line, for me, is that I really wish Slashdot would stop carrying stories about patents because misinformation and worse is consistently moderated to the top. Without a doubt, Slashdot is the Fox News of patents.
It's good to see companies which patent and sue about trivial ideas get sued themselves. Remember the trash can patent?
Is it?
It's not like that money comes from nowhere or means nothing.
Consider how many people 100 million dollars could employ.
Consider that nonsense like this is a direct disincentive to both innovation and copetition.
What you're saying is like saying that it's nice that heroin dealer got shot by herion dealer B. Is this really a good thing?
Life is too short to proofread.
Consider how many people 100 million dollars could employ.
Just one, but I'll work O/T and weekends too!
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
If more people/companies challenged the 'fork and knife' patents, fewer companies would abuse them.
I believe you mean: An apparatus to divide food into portions of arbitrary size, by keeping the initial portion in place by holding the handle of the multi-pronged device, while simultaneously grasping the handle of the bladed device, and moving the thin or serated edge back and forth in a sawing motion against the food, and subsequently introducing those portions into an oral oriface using the multi-pronged device, or leaving them in their original position, or thereabouts, as desired, by firmly pressing one part of the bladed device against the portion to facilitate removal of the multi-pronged device from the aforementioned portion. Patent(s) pending.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Yeah. It got thrown out.
Consider how many people 100 million dollars could employ.
A thousand perhaps?
The money didn't vanish, it moved. That same $100m should be able to employ equally as many people at Creative, or less better people or more worse people or whatever. For all you know that money was lining some bank account somewhere, which will now be $100m shorter with little affect on employees, whereas Creative will use it to create a thousand jobs (like perhaps a better Linux team)
I see it as the old, fair and friendly neighborhood heroin dealer shot the new fast talkin' "tough guy" heroin dealer (honestly, like Apple, the perfect and selfless angel was punched in the face by Creative, the big bad devil).
I like Apple, honest. I think Creative did an unethical thing with this lawsuit; and I agree with your reamark about it discouraging competition and innovation.
Now ask me if I think Apple did an ethical thing by flying into Creative's camp, pissing on their tent, and taking Creative's fair? share of Rio's MP3 player market. Hmm?
I have to assume Apple wouldn't visciously steal Creative's market share if "business" hadn't demanded that they take that opportunity. I also have to assume that Creative dislikes patents as much as you and I.
I'll bet most athletes, at times, dislike the fact that if they have less points than their opponent, they lose. They may have worked harder. They may have deserved it more. They may have wantedit SO much more. Their eighteen kids may be dying and only wishing to see their mother/father win, whereas their opponent's looking for their eighteenth win.
(point being, everybody has to play by the unfair rules, and $100m never just "vanishes" in a lawsuit between two giants, unless of course it's to a lawyer)